Linking Tax reform and the Insurance mandate can only mean two things.
- Thread starter Rockport Zebra
- Start date
He's had a bad year, though. Could be throwing up half-court shots at this point.
More than likely he added it to gain the votes he needed for tax reform.
I'm not sure how you do the math to get to 50 on that one, but okay. Seems to me he's just punching more holes in a ship that's already barely above water.
I love the irony that the mandate can only be included in the bill because it's a tax -- given the history of that.
That really has nothing to do with it, whatsoever.
They are looking for cost savings to make the tax bill fit the Byrd rule....and removing the mandate means a lot less people (13m per CBO) buy insurance through ACA. Less people buying insurance means less subsidies from the govt coffers....and hence cost savings to offset tax cuts.
Adding the mandate repeal fixes the very serious budget problems the current bill has.
They need to find a way to make the corp tax cuts permanent, rather than sunset in 10 years. And this is literally the only way they can get there....and still have any individual cuts as well. BTW, the individual cuts are ALL expiring in 8 years.
This thing has MAJOR problems....and it's all based upon the premise of the bill. It's only really about permanently cutting corp tax rates...but a ton of window dressing is being done on the individual side to make it at least somewhat politically palatable.
Remains to be seen if it'll actually work. Really a long way uphill from here.
They need to find a way to make the corp tax cuts permanent, rather than sunset in 10 years. And this is literally the only way they can get there....and still have any individual cuts as well. BTW, the individual cuts are ALL expiring in 8 years.
This thing has MAJOR problems....and it's all based upon the premise of the bill. It's only really about permanently cutting corp tax rates...but a ton of window dressing is being done on the individual side to make it at least somewhat politically palatable.
Remains to be seen if it'll actually work. Really a long way uphill from here.
You're not understanding what I'm saying, twenty.
Remember how the mandate wasn't a tax -- until it was defended in the courts as being a tax....which was precisely the reasoning upon which NFIB v. Sebelius was adjudicated.
Removing the mandate will "only" remove what, 11-13 million from insurance. So this quote isn't exactly accurate but close. Kasich was interviewed on This Week and asked about the party's efforts to overturn ACA and he basically asked what kind of person wants to throw 25 million people off of insurance. Who had Kasich being the voice of reason 5 years ago, and was there a way of betting on that because you should now be very wealthy?
Employer health insurance began because of WWII wage controls. If WWII doesn't happen, we don't have employer health care. As technology grew and costs of healthcare went up, without employer health coverage someone would have had to devise a way to make sure Americans had coverage. We would have enacted some reasonable form of single payer. But because a majority of Americans get health coverage through work, that majority rejects that notion in America today. Steve Bannon's hero, herr Hitler, still screwing America over 70 years after his death.
Employer health insurance began because of WWII wage controls. If WWII doesn't happen, we don't have employer health care. As technology grew and costs of healthcare went up, without employer health coverage someone would have had to devise a way to make sure Americans had coverage. We would have enacted some reasonable form of single payer. But because a majority of Americans get health coverage through work, that majority rejects that notion in America today. Steve Bannon's hero, herr Hitler, still screwing America over 70 years after his death.
I don't understand why Murray-Alexander getting a vote as part of the deal makes any sense. The Senate voting on it doesn't matter unless Ryan's going to let the House vote on it.
Hope the brakes can be put on until January since both of the bills are deeply flawed at the moment at best.
Hope the brakes can be put on until January since both of the bills are deeply flawed at the moment at best.
The last two polls out showed Moore with a healthy lead still. In one poll, Moore is hurt in undecideds by his actions, but overall far more people say it makes them MORE likely to vote for him instead of less. If he stays in, he's not going to lose. Not unless he accidentally has a moment of compassion and suggests that maybe gays have a right to live, or that poor people should be able to occasionally see the doctor. As long as he avoids those missteps, he's got it.
Now, there is the catch. I think you are right, but it will be at a steep price (unless Bannon abandons him). If Bannon stays with him, it will be one bloody fight. The argument that the voters elected him knowing about the allegations and McConnell is thwarting the will of the people will probably end McConnell's effectiveness. He's hanging on by a thread as is.
Yeah...that was all political food fight.
Fine, penalty, tax.... All $ that go to the IRS, IMO.
Don't agree. I think a lot of Republicans, maybe most of them, would vote for Moore hoping the senate doesn't let him in just to keep the seat in GOP hands.
It's really just about the $$ to make tax reform get through and have any meat on it. It really has little to do with GOPs leadership's desire to mess with healthcare again.
They have done this because it's the maybe the most palatable expenditure they could find to axe (vs other deductions, etc).
Recall...this is exactly why Ryan/McConnell needed to do ACA repeal first....it wasn't anything to do with that bill itself...it was they needed the $$ to make tax reform work.
They've already totally axed SALT deductions....which likely makes it un-passable in the house.
I mentioned back in Jan that 1) ACA would not be repealed and 2) tax reform would fail.
Things are right on track.
The key factor likely in Moore's favor, as I see it, is that the turnout for the primaries were in the teen percents. This news is conceivably mobilizing Moore's "base"* to get out more than the minority opposition.
* Base in this case is rich.
* Base in this case is rich.
The numbers about who would be "thrown off" insurance are not reliable. Those numbers include people who don't have insurance, but might if the mandate stayed in effect. They know this number because of a computer algorithm. See, AI really is making policy.
If computer algorithms are good enough to draft baseball teams, they are good enough to make policy. And all the baseball teams use them now because it turned out scouts watching a guy and marveling at his "smooth stroke" really didn't indicate if he could hit a ball.
Well, there's that too. They need to repeal the mandate to free up money that allows tax reform to get through Senate with a simple majority.
It depends on the Republicans, and again, on Breitbart. Let's recall Breitbart easily defeated traditional Republicans in the runoff. There will be pressure from that wing (assuming Bannon stays with Moore and that appears a bit shaky).
If Moore wins and they boot him, it will take a long time before that seat is filled as it will be a very messy process (including a lawsuit by Moore). And they only have a small window to get tax reform voted through in 2018.
Doesn't the governor appoint, and that appointment is good through seating the new 2019 congress?
There probably will be a lawsuit. But I think it wouldn't last any longer than it would take to resolve a MTD. Separation of powers is pretty clear on this one. The court's have a long history of staying out of the internal affairs of congress.
I don't give Breitbart that much credit. Moore was popular in his own right.
A) The words "McConnell" and "effectiveness" don't belong in the same sentence.
B) I think most of the country -- including most Republicans -- would be just fine with the Senate expelling Moore.
C) I'm not as sure as you are that Moore is going to win. I certainly hope he doesn't. But, if he does, then hopefully they can find some federal laws he's violated. That guy just needs to slither back under his rock.
Modeling the individual mandate is very difficult....all modeling requires some starting data on how people respond to economic incentives/penalties. And the only data that existed was Massachusetts.
CBO has recognized the limitations and has recognized they need to get a lot better with their model. Which will only happen as new data comes in each year.
Actually WHEN he hit the ball is the valuable sabermetric. Did you see Trouble With the Curve? Great old white guy feel good movie.
I wish politics were as easy to deal with has baseball. Imagine every player on the diamond taking bribes to play a certain way. That's politics. And it is worse than that.
That may be true, explain Trump easily winning the primary. A NY liberal democrat who had given heavily to the Dems and was pro-choice. The insurgency may not control the party, but they have established a serious beachhead and are reinforcing. I take it back, they do control the party and I know that because typically the president controls the party apparatus.
An interesting thought, suppose the Senate refuses to seat Moore and a new person is appointed and a new special election scheduled. There is no law blocking Moore from running in it. It would be quite possible that Moore could again be the Republican candidate. Sure, not likely, but it appears a lot of hard core conservatives are angered that the Washington Post and Mitch McConnell are telling them who can be their Senator. I wouldn't entirely dismiss the possibility, angry people vote.
I think it's only good until the next special election. Alabama law on the issue:
On such a day as the governor may direct, unless vacancy occurs between 2 and 4 months before the next regularly-scheduled general election, in which case it is held at that election. If vacancy occurs within 60 days of the next regularly-scheduled general election, a special election must be held on the first Tuesday after 60 days have elapsed since the vacancy occurred.
Here's a scenario for you. The Senate expels Moore, and the governor of AL appoints an interim Senator to replace him. In addition to a federal lawsuit, what if Moore files suit in Alabama state court asserting that the governor has no right to replace him since he was unlawfully denied his U.S. Senate seat? I imagine he has a few friends on the bench in Alabama that could really make an even bigger mess of things.Bottom line is the douchebag Moore just needs to go away, and the people of Alabama need to find their way out of the 1920's.
Here is some good background detail as to why the numbers don't make any sense.
Everyone from Trump to Paul to Collins is saying do "X" and then use that money to increase "Y".
Problem being that they already have a huge hole to fill from where they currently sit....so they using savings from say, the individual mandate, for further tax cuts is counter intuitive.
Oh, and their current bill can't pass the House as-is, due to SALT.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/11/republicans-cant-afford-their-tax-cut-habit.html
Everyone from Trump to Paul to Collins is saying do "X" and then use that money to increase "Y".
Problem being that they already have a huge hole to fill from where they currently sit....so they using savings from say, the individual mandate, for further tax cuts is counter intuitive.
Oh, and their current bill can't pass the House as-is, due to SALT.
The difference between eliminating SALT completely and the House compromise is about $60 billion in annual revenue.
The Senate GOP can’t make up that gap without writing a completely different bill. Unless Mitch McConnell has the votes to abolish the filibuster — or is sitting on some Nobel Prize–worthy piece of creative accounting — Senate Republicans don’t really have a tax plan, at all. And they don’t seem to have any clue that this is the case
The Senate GOP can’t make up that gap without writing a completely different bill. Unless Mitch McConnell has the votes to abolish the filibuster — or is sitting on some Nobel Prize–worthy piece of creative accounting — Senate Republicans don’t really have a tax plan, at all. And they don’t seem to have any clue that this is the case
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/11/republicans-cant-afford-their-tax-cut-habit.html
